You are on page 1of 36

Gap Analysis in Emergency

Water, Sanitation and


Hygiene Promotion

Andy Bastable and Lucy Russell, Oxfam GB


July 2013

The HIF is supported by The HIF is managed by


Contents

i Acronyms

ii Executive Summary

1 Background

2 Methodology

3 Literature Review

5 Consultation Findings
Focus Group Discussions with Beneficiaries 5
Workshops and Discussions at Country
or Sub-Country Level 6
Online Practitioner Survey 8
Global WASH Cluster 9
Donor responses to the Questionnaire 10

12 Consultation findings and discussion


of priority gaps
Annex 1: Terms of Reference 15
Annex 2: Timeline 16
Annex 3: List of issues raised by each
stakeholder group in order
of priority 17
Annex 4: Detailed Results from the
Literature Review 19
Annex 5: Literature Review References 20
Annex 6: Profile of Online Practitioner
Survey Respondents 21
Annex 7: Online Gap Analysis Survey
for WASH Practitioners 22
Annex 8: Summary of Other Issues raised 25
Annex 9: Detailed Results from
Donor Questionnaire 28
Gap Analysis in Emergency Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion

Acronyms

ACF Action Contre la Faim


ALNAP Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance
CARE Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere
CHAST Childrens Hygiene and Sanitation Training
CLTS Community Led Total Sanitation
CRS Catholic Relief Services
DRR Disaster Risk Reduction
DFID Department for International Development (UK)
DRC Democratic Republic of Congo
DWS Drinking Water Supply
ECHO Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection department of the European Commission
ELRHA Enhancing Learning and Research for Humanitarian Assistance
ER Early Recovery
FGD Focus Group Discussion
GWC Global WASH Cluster
HHWT Household Water Treatment
HIF Humanitarian Innovation Fund
HP Hygiene Promotion
IFRC International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent
IRC International Rescue Committee
KAP Knowledge Attitudes Practice
LRRD Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development
MSF Medecins sans Frontieres
NFI Non Food Items
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
OFDA Office for US Disaster Assistance
PHAST Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation
POU Point of Use
RECA Regional Emergency Cluster Advisor
SCF Save the Children Fund
TF Tear Fund
UDDT Urine Diverting Dry toilet
UN United Nations
UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
UNICEF United Nations Childrens Fund
WASH Water Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion
WC WASH Cluster
WEDC Water, Engineering and Development Centre
WRM Water Resource Management

Humanitarian Innovation Fund Report 2013 i


Gap Analysis in Emergency Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion

Executive Summary

The emergency Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Across all six components of the analysis,
Promotion (WASH) gap analysis project was sanitation issues were identified as the major
funded by The Humanitarian Innovation Fund area with gaps and potential for innovation.
(HIF), a program managed by Enhancing The second major gap identified by four
Learning and Research for Humanitarian groups was hygiene issues; the country and
Assistance (ELRHA) in partnership with the sub country WASH sector groups and the
Active Learning Network for Accountability beneficiary groups selected water as the
and Performance in Humanitarian Action second priority and hygiene third.
(ALNAP), and is a component of a larger
The specific issues raised have been
initiative to identify and support innovations in
consolidated into 57 different categories.
emergency WASH.
These were then ranked according to the
The project was commissioned to identify number of times they were mentioned in the
the major challenges that require innovative feedback and the priority they were given in
solutions in humanitarian WASH. It is a the workshops.
targeted effort to identify different stakeholder
The most significant gaps identified in
perspectives of the gaps and spaces for
emergency WASH were:
innovation in emergency WASH, rather
than a systematic review of the evidence 1. Latrines in locations where no pits are
around WASH programming. A total of 909 possible (urban, high watertable/flooding)
people were consulted across around 40 2. Community participation and
countries, involving individual practitioners empowerment of vulnerable groups,
and approximately 45 different organizations, including monitoring and evaluation from
spanning donors, the UN system and the outset
international and national NGOs
3. Latrine emptying and desludging
Data was collected during a six month 4. Hygiene promotion and the importance of
consultation period and draws on six understanding context, including socio-
complementary research components: anthropology issues
A review of relevant literature produced 5. Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS)
over the last five years and sanitation marketing
Structured focus group discussions with 6. Urban alternatives for excreta disposal
eight beneficiary groups in six countries 7. Exit strategies and sustainability issues
Facilitated workshop discussion with from the outset
WASH practitioners working at the country 8. Final sewage disposal options after
and sub-national level in 12 countries desludging and treatment
An on-line survey of humanitarian WASH 9. Further development of non-toilet options/
practitioners early response/mobile
Two facilitated sessions with Global WASH 10. Hand washing hardware and promotion
Cluster (GWC) meetings and sustainability (including soap) and
Consultation with five major donor non-soap options
organisations supporting humanitarian 11. Water Treatment, particularly bulk and
WASH programming and policy point of use household filters, including
cost and sustainability issues
12. The need for low-tech WASH solutions
acceptable and sustainable by locals

Humanitarian Innovation Fund Report 2013 ii


Gap Analysis in Emergency Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion

From this list it is clear that excreta disposal


issues such as latrines in areas where pits
cannot be dug, desludging latrines, no-toilet
options and the final treatment or disposal
of the sewage are the areas in which people
have identified gaps in emergency responses.
Unsurprisingly, given current patterns in urban
migration and the nature of recent emergency
responses, urban sanitation in particular was
identified as a major gap. The other major
issue highlighted was weak community
participation and the critical importance of
designing appropriate hygiene promotion
activities for each context. Sustainability
also emerged as an important issue for all
WASH activities, as did the emergency-
development continuum, the importance
of better preparation and resilience and the
need for exit strategies and environmental
considerations.
As to be expected, there were many other
issues highlighted by various groups which
were beyond the scope of this project but
were nonetheless worthy of note. A major
issue, for example, was coordination with local
state actors and NGOs, coordination within
the GWC and coordination between GWC
and other Clusters. Additionally respondents
mentioned funding issues, training, and
preparation/prepositioning.
The next phase of this project will be to
facilitate a structured innovation process to
identify the strategies, methodologies and
technologies that can be used to address the
gaps which are not already being dealt with by
other initiatives. For more information on this
process, please visit the HIF website:
www.humanitarianinnovation.org

Humanitarian Innovation Fund Report 2013 iii


Gap Analysis in Emergency Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion

Background

Clean drinking water, effective sanitation The Humanitarian Innovation Fund (HIF) WASH
and good hygiene practices have proven Stream is managed by Enhancing Learning
to be central to saving lives and reducing and Research for Humanitarian Assistance
suffering during emergencies, effectively (ELRHA). The HIF WASH Innovation Project
controlling conditions such as diarrhoea, is funded by the Department for International
which itself kills 4,000 children daily.1 In April Development, UK (DFID). The WASH
2012, the Secretary of State for International Innovation Project5 seeks to identify the major
Development in the UK announced a doubling challenges that require innovative solutions in
of support to water and sanitation.2 The the Humanitarian WASH sector (see the Terms
January 2012 DFID strategy for promoting of Reference, Annex 1). The focus of this work
innovation and evidence in humanitarian is Humanitarian Programming and Response;
response found a clear demand for more it will only concentrate on challenges that can
innovative technologies and approaches be solved by tangible innovation. The Project
suitable for emergency situations and a strong has however agreed to keep a note of other
role for the private sector to play in innovating gaps or challenges and to share those with the
and supplying appropriate technologies for Global WASH Cluster (GWC).
humanitarian response.3
Recent research has noted that the
need for improved WASH strategies for
emergencies has generated a number of new
Definitions of WASH terminology
approaches that have been explored by relief used in the report:
organizations, leading to rapid innovation.
Sanitation:
While this may be a promising sign the same
research noted that there remains insufficient Refers to: Excreta disposal from toilets to
confidence and evidence of what works, final deposit site or treatment; Solid Waste
what doesnt and why in emerging processes, management; Drainage and Vector control.
technologies and approaches for humanitarian
Hygiene Promotion:
WASH services. Unknowns persist about
which strategies are suitable for the immediate Refers to: Community mobilisation and
emergency phase and which technologies, participation; health data monitoring;
practices, and approaches may permit a information, education and communication
transition towards more sustainable solutions (IEC); behavioural change and hygiene kit
and future resilience.4 This work is part of distribution. In this report Childrens Hygiene
larger efforts to address such concerns and and Sanitation Training (CHAST), Participatory
identify and build credible evidence around Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation
innovations in emergency WASH. (PHAST) and/or Community Led Total
Sanitation (CLTS) have also been included
under hygiene promotion.

1 https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/providing- Water:
clean-water-and-sanitation-in-developing-countries Refers to: Ground water, water treatment,
2 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/water-and-
sanitation-uk-to-double-its-support water testing, and water supply.
3 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/
uploads/attachment_data/file/193166/prom-innov-
evi-bas-appr-build-res-resp-hum-cris.pdf
4 Brown, J., S. Cavill, O. Cumming, A. Jeandron (2012)
Water, sanitation, and hygiene in emergencies:
summary review and recommendations for further
research, Waterlines 31: 11-29 5 Referred to as the project in this document

Humanitarian Innovation Fund Report 2013 1


Gap Analysis in Emergency Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion

Methodology

The research for the project began in 5. A Gap Analysis Survey was created,
January 2013. It was led by Andy Bastable, tested and circulated in English, French,
Head of Water and Sanitation at Oxfam GB, Spanish and Arabic
and supported by Project Assistant Lucy
6. A request for Donor input was sent to
Russell.It is a targeted effort to identify
individual contacts in several donor
different stakeholder perspectives of the
agencies supporting humanitarian WASH
gaps and spaces for innovation in emergency
programming and policy.
WASH, rather than a systematic review of the
evidence around WASH programming. The In addition, the Regional Emergency Cluster
Global WASH Cluster assisted the project by Advisors (RECAs) were contacted with a
sending out an on-line survey to all members request to run regional workshops. However,
of the Cluster and by contacting all 35 country the RECA project itself was in the process of
Clusters to facilitate the feedback from group renewal and funding was not obtained in time
discussions. The Projects timeline is included for the RECAs to participate in the process.
in Annex 2. The project adopted a range
of qualitative research methods employed
through six complementary research
components, including:
1. A literature review conducted following
a request for relevant literature with key
actors and the GWC.
2. The collection of beneficiary feedback
obtained through Focus Group
Discussions (FGDs). To complete this the
project prepared questions, guidelines and
notes which were piloted in South Sudan
Oxfam GB. The methodology for the FGD
was subsequently refined and circulated
for replication.
3. The use of structured workshop
discussions, with a facilitation plan
developed outlining suggestions for
a one-hour workshop. This was then
circulated to WASH Clusters and Forums/
Consortiums (where no formal cluster was
present), requesting that discussions take
place as part of a planned meeting, and
feedback provided with a ranked list of During the data gathering, over 200 issues
major challenges. were raised by the various contributing groups
4. The workshop methodology was and individuals. The issues and the number
adapted and used to facilitate workshop of times they were raised by all stakeholders
discussions with senior technical WASH consulted, were compiled, analysed and
specialists at the global level, taking place triangulated to determine priority gaps and
in the UK and Switzerland. challenges. A complete list of the issues
raised, disaggregated by stakeholder group
and in order of priority is included in Annex 3.

Humanitarian Innovation Fund Report 2013 2


Gap Analysis in Emergency Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion

Literature Review

A literature review was carried out and Sanitation: several sources raised the issue
the Global WASH Cluster and other key sanitation in difficult environments (high water
actors invited to send any relevant literature tables/flood, urban, unstable soils) and there
(formal or informal) to the project. Given the were suggestions about pit/latrine lining kits,
limited time and resources available for the raised latrines, sealed tanks. The need for
project, the literature review itself targeted close-the-loop approaches (eco-sanitation)
those recent publications synthesising a was mentioned. More than one source
wide range of evidence and experiences in considered the issue of non-toilet options
WASH programming, including a number of such as biodegradable bags, especially for
evidence reviews and learning reviews. Key initial onset but also for floods. Again, several
recommendations and suggestions from the sources identified excreta/sludge disposal
literature were then grouped under appropriate including storage, treatment, final disposal,
headings and an overall summary compiled, sewage, waste water and general drainage.
included below. A detailed list of the key Closely related were issues raised about
points from the literature is attached under latrine design: the need for alternatives to the
Annex 4. The list of literature reviewed is in classic plastic slab and variations (e.g. urine
Annex 5. diversion, sitting, childrens, disabled); and
durable, environmentally sound alternatives
Summary of key recommendations and for latrine superstructures. Also raised were
suggestions from the literature review issues of vulnerability, cost and the right to
Sanitation/excreta disposal, latrines and water.
solid waste management were raised 24
times; Hygiene (including maintenance) 13
times and Water 10. Other issues (including
environmental concerns and exit strategies)
were raised 4 times.6

6 These figures are included in the consolidated table


in Annex 3: see column headed Literature

Humanitarian Innovation Fund Report 2013 3


Gap Analysis in Emergency Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion

Hygiene promotion (HP): the literature


considered extending hygiene promotion to
schools, community groups, etc and involving
children more. Behaviour change was also
high on the agenda as a way of sustaining
longer term adherence to water treatments,
including point of use (POU); the latter
requires further research and perhaps new
approaches. Uptake and sustained practice
of handwashing, including no soap/no water
options, was identified and the need for
rapidly deployable handwashing stations for
communal latrines and a handwashing device.
Hygiene kits were raised in relation to content
and timing (delayed distribution beyond the
immediate emergency). More than one source
noted that HP activities during emergency
responses have increased. There is potentially
better data now available to assess the
effectiveness of Participatory Hygiene and
Sanitation Transformation (PHAST) and/or
Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) in
emergencies.
Water: there was a call for low-tech solutions
for beneficiaries and the sustainable treatment
of water, including at household level. There
were issues about bulk versus POU water
treatment, the need to involve women more
in using and maintaining water filters and
issues around the cost, sustainability and
acceptability of different water filters.
With regard to other issues, the emergency-
development continuum and need for exit
strategies, environmental concerns, DRR and
more evidence base for WASH in general were
raised.

Humanitarian Innovation Fund Report 2013 4


Gap Analysis in Emergency Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion

Consultation Findings

This section describes the gaps and


challenges identified by each major
Focus Group Discussions with
stakeholder group: the beneficiaries, country Beneficiaries
and sub-country workshops, the on-line Eight focus group discussions (FGDs) were
practitioner survey, the Global Wash Cluster held in six countries involving a total of 452
and major WASH donors. The findings for beneficiaries. Considerable effort went
each group are discussed below. The overall into drawing up the guidelines and piloting
results were consolidated (details in Annex 3) them. The FGDs were held in South Sudan
to identify priority challenges and gaps. (58 people), Pakistan (44), Somalia (110),
Afghanistan (45), Philippines (103) and Jordan
(92).

Summary of the key findings from


Beneficiary FGDs
Broadly, the findings from the beneficiary
FGDs demonstrated priority concerns about
sanitation 28, hygiene 6, water 6, and other 3.7

The FGDs with the beneficiaries generally


took place following an intervention or during
a longstanding emergency programme using
prepared guidelines. The exception to this was
Jordan which was active at the time of writing
and had just undertaken a similar analysis,
using its own methodology.

7 See Annex 3, column FGD

Humanitarian Innovation Fund Report 2013 5


Gap Analysis in Emergency Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion

The main FGD question was if we were


setting up a similar programme, what could
Workshops and Discussions at
be improved or done differently? Generally Country or Sub-Country Level
speaking the beneficiaries did not concern An invitation to run gap analysis discussions
themselves with the technical problems was sent to all WASH Clusters and Forums/
associated with water and sanitation consortiums and member organisations of
provision, although there were comments GWC. Contributions were received from
related to the structures not being durable. five countries through nine workshops held
Overall, FGD participants were reasonably specifically for this analysis: South Sudan
satisfied with the water, sanitation, hygiene (Maban, 10 people), South Sudan (Juba, 24
promotion and community participation people), Somalia (Nairobi, 25 people), Somalia
provision. (Mogadishu, 15 people), DRC (40 people),
Sanitation was by far the main priority which Afghanistan (Kabul, 22 people), Afghanistan
includes concerns related to poor drainage for (Western region, 20 people), Philippines (74
showers and bathing areas and the issue that people), Oxfam GB PH Team (31 people).
agencies do not normally provide water inside Furthermore, we received gap analyses based
latrines for those cultures practising anal on pre-existing in-country workshops and/
cleansing with water. The other major concern or information/evaluation/reviews from the
was rubbish disposal. Issues included the following seven countries: Lebanon, Liberia
need to liaise with local authorities for bins or (Feb 2013 consortium workshop), Jordan
regular collections, a lack of tools and support (Oxfam Feb 2013 ideas), Sierra Leone,
or lack of disposal sites for communities Yemen, Haiti, Pakistan (2012). In total 261
attempting to dispose of rubbish themselves, people participated in the workshops and
leading them to abandon the attempt. One discussions.
FGD mentioned recycling and a desire to be
Summary of priorities according to gap
supported in this approach. Other often-
analysis country workshop/discussions
mentioned sanitation issues concerned the
lack of latrine use by women due to privacy The country and sub country workshops
issues (especially related to menstruation), the prioritised sanitation, raising it 60 times
ability to lock the latrine and lighting provision. and water 53 times. Hygiene promotion
In some cases, a shortage of latrines had led was raised 30 times and other 12 times
to people defecating in the open. (including exit strategies and sustainability
issues). Some workshops ranked the issues,
When hygiene promotion was raised, people others simply listed them as priorities or
had different preferences for the various inputs concerns. Additional valuable feedback was
and the timings of these for example kits obtained through the country workshops as
addressing menstrual hygiene, at a time to suit considerable discussion also took place.8 See
women and the need for female staff able to Annex 3 for the full results.
sensitively discuss hygiene issues. The need
for additional washing facilities and soap were Sanitation was high on many of the ranked
also raised. lists, especially urban and early response
sanitation. General sanitation gaps included
With regard to water provision, in a number sanitation promotion and sanitation and
of countries beneficiary concerns related to hygiene in fragile and conflict-affected
the equal distribution of tap stands and the environments. Key challenges related to the
distance to the tap stand. difficulties in building latrines on rock/snow/
sand/collapsible soils and desludging issues
including lack of appropriate equipment,
how to extend the use of latrines through
desludging and how to treat the sludge or,
indeed, use it to advantage (biogas, compost
etc. and recycling of wastewater). Drainage
(from showers and bathing areas) was also
a top issue identified. The need for eco and
environmentally friendly latrines was raised
more than once.

8 See column W-S in Annex 3 for all issues raised

Humanitarian Innovation Fund Report 2013 6


Gap Analysis in Emergency Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion

Water (raised 53 times) was another major Hygiene Promotion was raised 30 times. There
concern, particularly with respect to poor was due recognition of the need to understand
availability in arid environments and in areas the context and cultural beliefs and how they
with shallow wells and the potential for drying might affect hygiene practices. Community
up of water resources. There was also a need participation in general and of vulnerable
identified for water conservation and water groups in particular was also strongly
harvesting technologies such as rain water highlighted; poor participation and the need
catchment as well as greater awareness by for improved awareness-raising campaigns
the community on proper water use (e.g. and approaches were identified. The need
reasonable irrigation). Low groundwater for better evidence of effectiveness was
availability was a significant challenge. raised and how to ensure the effectiveness
Further challenges and needs raised several of hygiene mobilisers. Challenges remain to
times included the need to map and share ensure the accessibility of community latrines
information and address salinity issues. for women (Afghanistan), partly because of
cultural issues and partly resulting from fear
Another frequent issue raised was the
of attack. CLTS was mentioned as an option
need for low-technology solutions which
more appropriate in an established emergency
are acceptable and sustainable by local
than in rapid onset. Handwashing uptake and
people, especially in protracted emergencies.
sustained practice was an identified concern
Examples included: how to involve the private
along with menstrual hygiene.
sector in water provision (Philippines), the
use of manual hand sludge pumps (in Haiti) Other issues raised in several of the in-country
and dry toilet design. Another discussion discussions particularly related to the need for
considered how to sustain wells/boreholes, exit strategies and sustainability. Other issues
possibly with fuel or solar energy. Additionally raised once or twice included preparedness,
maintenance of water source/supply, spare the lack of available risk mapping (Yemen), the
parts and monitoring was mentioned. One need to think long term and better stockpiling
workshop selected collapsible jerry cans as a of supplies (e.g. for water storage). The need
top priority, another asked about how to clean for good planning and leadership was raised;
jerry cans effectively. examples included the need for coordination
of approaches such as household water
treatment vs. treatment at source, or blanket
approaches vs. using epidemiology for better
targeting (Sierra Leone).

Humanitarian Innovation Fund Report 2013 7


Gap Analysis in Emergency Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion

Summary of the key findings raised in the


Online Practitioner Survey online survey for practitioners
The English version of the Gap Analysis
survey was set up online in February 2013; the
French and Spanish versions were available at
the beginning of March and an Arabic version
in April. The survey ran until 15th April 2013
(Arabic until 25th April). In May, given renewed
interest, the surveys were reopened until 5th
June 2013. The Project had expected some
30 responses but actually received 107.
The survey asked respondents to note
challenges, solutions and, separately, to list
their top three issues of a technical and/
or approach/software nature that would
lend themselves to creative solutions. The
combined figures provide an overview of the
frequency of issues raised: Sanitation 167,
Hygiene 94, Water 55 and other issues 54 Sanitation was mentioned 167 times in the
(which included the emergency-development survey and 55 times as a priority issue. The
continuum; exit strategies, sustainability; most frequently mentioned concern was
environmental issues and improved integration digging latrines in challenging situations
of DRR in WASH). (particularly urban contexts due to lack of
space but also in rock, floods, soil, snow). This
Who responded: was followed closely by the issue of excreta
The online survey permitted detailed waste management especially in urban, floods
disaggregation of the data according to and rocky terrain. Maintenance, cost recovery,
the respondents experience. Of the 107 sustainability and the cleaning of latrines were
respondents many had experience of more also significant issues raised, as was drainage
than four humanitarian programmes, working from showers and wash units. Biodegradable
in different responses in camp settings (83), bags were mentioned several times, for
floods (77), conflict (75), host communities example as a response in the first 24 hours, in
(64), earthquakes (54), rapid onset (51) and impossible-to-dig contexts and for children.
drought (49). 74 respondents had more than Eco-friendly solutions (decomposable latrines,
five years experience in the sector; 31 had compost latrines) and urine diverting latrines
worked in the sector for between one and were mentioned more than once as was anal
five years. As a result, their feedback reflects cleansing and lighting.
considerable experience across multiple
Hygiene promotion was raised 94 times
contexts. Details of their backgrounds are
in total and 37 times as a priority issue. A
included in Annex 6. Additional comments
major concern was the (weak) participation
from the survey (less commonly raised) are
and empowerment of communities and of
included in Annex 7.
vulnerable groups and their involvement in
monitoring and evaluation (M&E). Overall, a
major theme identified was the importance of
hygiene promotion in any WASH response.
A key concern related to the importance of
understanding the context for any HP design
(e.g. for materials and the need for innovation
such as SMS). Some respondents noted
challenges related to the time-consuming
nature of HP and how to better engage with
and empower the community (and vulnerable
groups within it). Handwashing was mentioned
several times, with and without soap, long
term uptake and soap manufacture.

Humanitarian Innovation Fund Report 2013 8


Gap Analysis in Emergency Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion

Behaviour change was raised with regard to


potential ethical concerns and how to maintain
Global WASH Cluster
and measure it. Weak national capacity and The Global WASH Cluster (GWC) represents
poor participation were also raised a number the coming together of major actors in the
of times. WASH sector globally. It provides an open
and formal platform for humanitarian WASH
Water was raised a total of 55 times overall
actors to work together to address key
and 26 as a priority issue. The priority issue
weaknesses in the WASH sector as a whole.
mentioned most frequently was groundwater
There were 35 WASH Clusters and 2 WASH
management, its mapping and sharing of
Forums active at the time of this research.
information as well as finding water in arid
environments. This is linked to concerns The GWC held two gap analysis workshops
raised about conserving water and better for this project. The first was held at WEDC in
use of rainwater capture. Again there were the UK in March 2012 and was attended by 34
challenges identified about the need for low people representing 29 different organisations
tech simple solutions which are acceptable, including INGOs, UN organisations, Red
maintainable and sustainable by the local Cross, WEDC and donors. In May 2013 this
population. Examples raised more than once exercise was repeated at the GWC meeting
included household water treatment and in Geneva involving 35 people from similar
quality. The challenges of manual drilling, organisations. The issues and priorities
desalination and trucking/tankering were from each workshop were recorded. Both
identified by more than one respondent. workshops prioritised sanitation issues,
particularly in urban contexts but also more
Other issues were mentioned a total of
generally.
54 times, with 24 raised as priority issues.
Priorities included: how to better link Overall, the GWC noted concerns about
emergency and development, the importance sanitation 11; hygiene 4; Water 3; Other 2.
of exit strategies, environmental concerns
and long term sustainability issues as well as
preparation and resilience.

Summary of Other issues raised by the


survey
As to be expected, there were many issues
raised that go beyond the scope of this project
and reflect wider challenges faced by the
humanitarian system, but are of interest and
relevance to the Global WASH Cluster. Such
topics included leadership, particularly with
respect to coordination. Coordination included
interactions with local state and NGO bodies,
coordination within the Global WASH Cluster
and coordination between GWC and other
clusters. Additionally respondents mentioned
funding issues, training, and preparedness,
including prepositioning of supplies. A
summary of these and other issues raised by
different contributors is included in Annex 8.

Humanitarian Innovation Fund Report 2013 9


Gap Analysis in Emergency Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion

In the 2012 exercise, the highest sanitation


priority was identified as excreta disposal
Donor responses to the
in difficult environments, including final Questionnaire
deposition site for desludged excreta. In 2013 In March, 2013, a questionnaire was sent
the challenges identified in order of priority to the five major donors to humanitarian
were: programming (OFDA, DFID, ECHO, UNICEF
1. urban sanitation and UNHCR) requesting their response
and inviting them to hold their own internal
2. urban water and hygiene promotion
discussion/workshop if appropriate.
3. desludging latrines (all contexts) We received a good response including
4. sanitation in other contexts (non-urban) contributions from most of the ECHO regional
5. household sanitation offices as well as its head office. More details
of individual donor priorities are included in
Urban water and hygiene promotion was also Annex 9.
the second highest priority in 2012. Hygiene
promotion overall was high on the 2012 In summary, sanitation was the major priority
agenda and the need for an evidence base with 24 references, followed by hygiene
of what does and doesnt work in HP and promotion (10), water (8) and other (4).
community mobilisation.

Summary of key findings from Donors


Sanitation was again the major concern of
the donors consulted during the research.
The highest priority was available sanitation
options in difficult environments such as
floods, rocky soil contexts as well as urban
situations. This was closely followed by
excreta containment and disposal problems,
especially in floods and urban environments,
for example off-site excreta disposal, the
sustainability of excreta disposal and low-cost
sewerage options. The need for sustainable
and eco-friendly latrines was raised several
times. The importance of identifying the
existence of wastewater treatment facilities
located elsewhere in a country was also
raised, as wastewater removal may be more
important than treatment. Related to this was
the suggestion of a checklist for incremental
upgrading of sanitation and wastewater
treatment.

Humanitarian Innovation Fund Report 2013 10


Gap Analysis in Emergency Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion

Hygiene Promotion was the second priority.


Many of the ten references related to
handwashing, including hardware that would
function properly in communal toilets and
how to sustain local soap supply. Issues were
raised about how to measure and maintain
behaviour change, how to better evaluate
methodologies and innovative activities for
conducting hygiene promotion and about
better communication with beneficiaries
generally.
Water accounted for 8 references. Some
focussed on HHWT, especially for very turbid
water and, for example, the possible use of
solar power for distillation and/or heating. The
major priority for UNICEF was a failsafe way
of monitoring water tankering.
Issues included in the other category were:
improving the evidence base across WASH
with the support of academia, as well as
improved data collection and management.
Suggestions also included establishing a
household WASH kit, proposed guidance to
underline the chain of public health priorities
alongside common constraints/considerations
and a comparative analysis of all the technical
choices to identify the best option for the
context. The lack of clearly developed
technologies and approaches in urban
contexts was also raised by donors.

Humanitarian Innovation Fund Report 2013 11


Gap Analysis in Emergency Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion

Consultation findings and


discussion of priority gaps

Summary of the findings across the data collection approaches, as detailed above.


Literature Beneficiary consultation


Country and sub country level Practitioners survey


Global WASH Cluster Donors

Humanitarian Innovation Fund Report 2013 12


Gap Analysis in Emergency Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion

In all six component parts of the research


methodology, sanitation was identified as the
area with the most scope for innovations to
be explored. This was followed by hygiene in
four of the six parts, with the exception of the
country and sub country WASH sector groups
and the beneficiary groups. They selected
water as the second priority and hygiene third.
A constraint encountered during the
analysis of the data was the variation in the
allocation of issues to different categories
by participants. Some categories overlap,
for example cleaning and sustainability of
latrines could be identified as a sanitation or
hygiene promotion issue. For the purposes of
this report this example was recorded as an
excreta disposal issue. However, the overall
emphasis on sanitation was so distinct that
some re-categorisation would not affect the
overall order of priority of sanitation, hygiene
and finally water.
The identification by field-based groups of
sanitation as the top priority was a striking
finding of the project. A number of factors
might explain this, stemming both from the
nature of the research design and changes
in the external context. In relation to bias
that may stem from the research design, the
lack of respondents or data from first phase
response, and the particular characteristics
of the countries that participated in the study
may have impacted on the findings. For
example, in countries experiencing insecurity,
open defecation is much less of an option;
while in many of the participating countries,
lack of privacy is also culturally unacceptable.
Despite these issues, the strong emphasis
on sanitation as the area with the most
potential for innovation is consistent across
the component parts of the gap analysis. The
prevalence of sanitation issues in the gap
analysis may instead be a consequence of
improvements in water responses in recent
years, which have out-paced developments in
sanitation and health. This is in part perhaps
a result of interest in humanitarian water
technologies by a number of private sector
actors.

Humanitarian Innovation Fund Report 2013 13


Gap Analysis in Emergency Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion

The table below shows the top 26 individual


issues raised by all stakeholders, listed in
order of the number of times mentioned
or prioritised. Issues that were raised less
than ten times are not included here, as
gaps identified less than ten times (out of a
total of 909 people) where judged not to be
considered a global priority. The full list of all
issues and the number of times they were
raised is included in Annex 3.

Emergency WASH gap analysis


No Issue raised Scoring
1 Latrines where no pits are possible (Urban, high watertable, floods, rock, snow, sands) 37
2 Community participation/empowerment of vulnerable groups inc M&E from beginning 27
3 Latrine emptying /desludging 26
4 HP - importance of context, understanding, including socio-anthropology 26
5 CLTS and sanitation marketing 23
6 Urban alternatives for excreta disposal 22
7 Exit strategies and sustainability issues to be considered from the start of a response 22
8 Final disposal options after desludging + treatment 19
9 Further development of non-toilet options/early response/mobile options 19
10 Hand washing hardware+promotion & sustainability+soap/non soap options 18
11 Water treatment - bulk vs. POU, filters, HHWT, cost, sustainability, mobile unit 18
12 Need low-tech solutions acceptable and sustainable by locals 18
13 Emerg-dev continuum including listening to existing field knowledge 18
14 Ecosan + biogas ecofriendly solutions 17
15 Latrines - facilitating anal cleansing 16
16 Water management including to involve private sector 15
17 General drainage from showers and wash units 15
18 Menstrual hygiene provision 14
19 Maintenance, (latrines) sustainability, cleaning, cash4work 13
20 Maintenance of water sources and supply, spare pump parts, monitoring 12
21 Community behaviour change 12
22 Environmental concerns (wastage at pump, poor drainage) 12
23 Shared & Family latrine sustainability / replicability 10
24 Solid (rubbish) waste management systems inc poss recycling 10
25 Hygiene promotion extended to schools and community groups, health clubs 10
26 Improved integration of DRR in WASH and enable community water safety plans 10

It is obvious from the table that excreta The challenge for the next phase is to
disposal is by far the most dominant gap establish which of the top 26 issues lend
identified. Gaps cover all stages of the latrine themselves to innovative solutions that are not
management cycle from construction of toilets currently being addressed by other initiatives.
to desludging and safe management to the This work will be addressed in the next phase
final disposal site. The other major issues of the WASH Humanitarian Innovation Fund
were hygiene promotion and community project.
mobilisation.

Humanitarian Innovation Fund Report 2013 14


Gap Analysis in Emergency Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion

Activities
Annex 1: Terms of Reference
Carry out a review of all past and current
The Humanitarian Innovation Fund (HIF) humanitarian literature that identifies
WASH Stream is managed by ELRHA challenges in humanitarian WASH
and funded directly the Department for
Design a gap analysis flyer that can be
International Development, UK (DFID).
used by the project to inform all in-country
This project seeks to identify the major WASH cluster coordinators or WASH
challenges that require innovative solutions sectoral leads
in the humanitarian WASH sector. The focus Enable the Global Cluster Coordinator to
of this work is on humanitarian programming inform all WASH clusters of this process
and response and will only concentrate on
Design a WASH gap analysis workshop
challenges that can be solved by tangible
session to be carried out by in-country
innovation.
WASH clusters and WASH forums
Phase 1 To carry out a multi level emergency Write to and call 33 WASH clusters and
WASH gap analysis to establish global 10 WASH forums to explain the gap
prioritisation of WASH challenges. analysis session
Devise an approach to involve beneficiary
feedback on WASH gaps
Write to and call 4-5 regional WASH
networks and enable them to hold WASH
gap analysis sessions
Identify key informants that capture work
in other work streams and interview
Devise and implement a gap analysis from
a humanitarian donor perspective
Hold a 2nd gap analysis session at the
Global WASH Forum
Send out and receive at least 30 gap
analysis questionnaires aimed at WASH
field practitioners
Collate all the information from the
in-country, regional and global and
questionnaires
Write up and present gap analysis

Outputs:
A full report of all the data collected and
a synthesis of the challenges identified
prioritised by their potential impact on the
sector.

Humanitarian Innovation Fund Report 2013 15


Gap Analysis in Emergency Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion

Annex 2: Timeline
The timeline for these various activities is noted below.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun


Alert GWC and ask if any previous gap analysis or relevant literature X
Design:
gap analysis workshop X
beneficiary focus group discussion questions X
and questionnaire for practitioners X
Test beneficiary FDG questions X
Write/call WASH Clusters/forums and explain and encourage to do X X X
workshop
Beneficiary feedback (via WC/RECA or other contacts) X X
4-5 WASH networks workshops via RECA X X
Donor feedback (individually) X X X
GWC workshop X
30 questionnaires to field practitioners (via survey monkey?) X X X X
Collate information, write up X X
Final presentation X

Humanitarian Innovation Fund Report 2013 16


Gap Analysis in Emergency Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion

Annex 3: List of issues raised by each


stakeholder group in order of priority
HIF Gap Analysis in WASH 2013
List of individual items in order of priority
Headings: Literature (Lit); FGD; Workshops (WS); Survey Question 4 (SQ4); Survey Q1-3(SQ1-3); GWC; Donor (Don)
SQ SQ
Issue Lit FGD WS GWC Don Total
4 1-3
Latrines where no pits are possible
4 6 9 13 1 4 37
(Urban, high watertable/floods,rock,sand)
Community participation/empowerment of vulnerable groups
7 8 12 27
inc M&E from beg
Latrine emptying /desludging 2 1 6 7 8 1 1 26
HP - importance of context, understanding, inc socio-
1 1 5 6 11 2 26
anthropology
CLTS and sanitation marketing 2 6 4 10 1 23
Urban alternatives for excreta disposal 4 2 4 7 1 4 22
Consider exit strategies and sustainability issues from the start 1 1 4 4 10 1 1 22
Final disposal options after desludging + treatment 1 2 4 7 1 4 19
Further development of non-toilet options/early response/
3 5 1 6 4 19
mobile inc peepoo
Hand washing hardware+promotion & sustainability+soap non
1 4 4 3 2 4 18
soap options
Treatment - bulk v POU, filters, HHWT, cost, sustainability,
2 5 6 3 2 18
mobile unit
Need low-tech solutions acceptable and sustainable by locals 3 7 4 2 1 1 18
Emerg-dev continuum inc listen to existing field knowledge 2 1 5 8 1 1 18
Ecosan + biogas 1 6 1 6 3 17
Latrines - facilitating anal cleansing 1 2 2 2 9 16
Water management/WRM inc involve private sector 8 3 3 1 15
General drainage, from showers and wash units eg rapid onset 1 5 4 1 4 15
Menstrual hygiene provision 1 6 2 1 4 14
Maintenance, (latrines) sustainability, cleaning, cash4work 1 1 5 6 13
Maintenance water source and supply, spare pump parts,
1 5 3 1 2 12
monitoring
Behaviour change 2 2 2 5 1 12
Environmental concerns (wastage at pump, poor drainage) 1 7 4 12
Shared & Family latrine sustainability / replicablity 1 2 5 1 1 10
Solid (rubbish) waste management systems inc poss recycling 1 6 3 10
Hygiene extended to schools and cmmty groups, health clubs 3 3 4 10
Improved integration of DRR in WASH and empower cmmty,
1 3 4 2 10
water safety plans
Pit Soil Stability / lining 1 1 1 3 3 9
Need for mapping and sharing info about groundwater 1 3 3 2 9
Latrines for children and disabled 1 1 1 2 2 1 8

Humanitarian Innovation Fund Report 2013 17


Gap Analysis in Emergency Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion

Low carbon desalination, salinity issues, alternatives 4 3 1 8


Slabs & cheap construction materials 2 1 1 1 1 1 7
Hygiene kits, content, timing, standardisation and evidence of
1 2 1 2 1 7
impact
Rapid borehole siting & low cost drilling 1 1 5 7
Trucking / tankering, how to exit, how to avoid, how to prove
1 2 3 1 7
impact
Water quality monitoring and testing at HH 4 1 1 6
National capacity, (low), capacity building, local participation
6 6
of CBOs
Sanitation lighting 1 1 3 5
Appropriate low cost sewerage options 2 1 1 1 5
Awareness activities, campaign (inc radio x1, posters x1, tv x1) 2 1 2 5
Management of water, latrine, waste and drains during and
1 3 1 5
after emergency
More research for evidence base for all WASH activities 1 2 0 1 1 5
Cholera HH v other approaches
2 2 4
(inconsistency across agencies)
Collapsible jerry can 3 1 4
Smallscale piped network design and mgmt 4 4
Rainwater catchment and reuse of water for garden 1 1 1 3
Chlorination issues - hardware for treatment and community
2 1 3
options
Lack of adequate and appropriate water storage instruments 1 1 2
Cleaning jerry cans 2 2
Evidence base and better structured link with academia 2 2
Real time GPS mapping of cholera in urban 1 1 2
Contamination of groundwater by pit latrines 1 1
Targeting mother and malnourished child (WASH and NUT) 1 1
Separate HP for men, women and children 1 1
Bed nets and/or insecticide for flies 1 1
Issue of payment versus free water 1 1
Market based approaches in WASH 1 1
Checklist for increasing sanitation and waste water for
1 1
upgrade
Monitoring with the community re maintenance
1 1
(SMS for repairs etc)

Humanitarian Innovation Fund Report 2013 18


Gap Analysis in Emergency Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion

Hygiene
Annex 4: Detailed Results from
recognition that HP activities/software has
the Literature Review increased but potential to see if PHAST
A literature review was carried out and the and/or CLTS can be used in emergencies:
Global WASH Cluster and other key actors need more evidence
invited to send any relevant literature (formal adherence to e.g. POU water treatment
or informal) to us. Key recommendations and safe storage remains low, needs more
and suggestions from the literature were then research and perhaps new approaches
grouped under appropriate headings and an uptake and sustained practice of hand
overall summary compiled. washing including no soap, no water
In summary: options
need for rapidly deployable hand washing
Sanitation
stations for communal latrines and
There were several areas of concern regarding handwashing device in itself (that can be
excreta disposal: added to an existing household water
excreta disposal and sludge disposal container, conserves water, allows hands-
including storage, treatment, final disposal free and sufficient flow)
sewage, waste water and general drainage hygiene kits, content and timing
(sometimes delayed beyond immediate
sanitation in difficult environments (high
emergency)
water tables, urban setting, unstable soil
situations) and suggestions of pit/latrine hygiene education extended to schools
lining kits potentially and other options for and community groups
flooding (raised latrine, rings, sealed tanks) WASH for children is poorly covered in
further development of non-toilet options literature and handbooks
(biodegradable bags etc) especially for
Water
initial onset
mostly related to treatment, bulk versus
mixed message if some agencies build
POU, HHWT still shows relatively low
latrines and others promote CLTS
actual clean water, involving women
Closely related to excreta disposal but in using filters, cost, sustainability and
specifically focussed on latrines: acceptability of different water filters
(needs more investigation)
alternatives to the classic plastic slab
approaches to promote consistent,
variations in the slab (urine diversion;
correct and sustained use of water quality
sitting; childrens; disabled)
interventions
durable, environmentally sound
water resource knowledge, (hydrological
alternatives to the classic plastic sheeting
parameters+)
and wooden poles superstructure (also
important for privacy issues) Another significant area of concern is
raised latrines which enable urine diversion sustainability and exit strategy:
and septic tanks emergencies happen within a context
Closely linked to both of the above were the of longer-term development and we
specific issues raised by an urban context: should think about exit strategies and
sustainability issues from the start i.e. solid
need for close-the-loop approaches e.g. waste, latrines, social marketing but also
eco-sanitation long term maintenance of facilities by the
vulnerability issues, cost, the right to water communities
environmental concerns, wasted water
at pump, poor drainage, maintaining and
encouraging tree cover
Other topics raised included: information
management/coordination; integration with
other sectors; drought response; research on
gender; long term planning for cyclical; use of
KAP studies.

Humanitarian Innovation Fund Report 2013 19


Gap Analysis in Emergency Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion

Agency Responses:
Annex 5: Literature Review
SCF initial response, January 2013
References
Tearfund initial response, January 2013
Below is a list of the papers included in the
literature review: IFRC initial interview response, January 2013
Alam, K. (2008). Flood disasters: Learning CARE initial response, January 2013
from previous relief and recovery operations.
ALNAP Lessons Paper. Available at: Other useful references
www.alnap.org/publications/pdfs/ALNAP- Davis, J. (1988) From emergency relief to
ProVention_flood_lessons.pdf long-term water development, Waterlines 6:
29-31
Johannessen, A (2011) Identifying gaps in
emergency sanitation: Design of new kits Djonoputro, E.R., Blackett, l, Rosenboom, J.W.
to increase effectiveness in emergencies, and Weitz, A. (2010), Understanding sanitation
two day workshop 22-23 February 2011, options in challenging environments,
Stoutenburg workshop, Netherlands Waterlines 29: 186-203
Oxfam GB (2011) Urban WASH lessons Harvey, P.A. and Reed, R.A. (2005) Planning
learned from post-earthquake response in environmental sanitation programmes in
Haiti. Available at: http://policy-practice. emergencies, Disasters 29: 129-51
oxfam.org.uk/publications/urban-wash- Nawaz, J., Lal, S., Raza, S. and House,
lessons-learned-from-post-earthquake- S. (2010) Oxfam experience of providing
response-in-haiti-136538 screened toilet bathing and menstruation
Brown, J., S. Cavill, O. Cumming, A. units in its earthquake response in Pakistan,
Jeandron (2012) Water, sanitation, and Gender and Development 18: 81-86
hygiene in emergencies: summary review Smout, I. and S. Parry-Jones (1998) Lessons
and recommendations for further research, learned from NGO experiences in the water
Waterlines 31: 11-29 and sanitation sector: Water and NGOs
Bastable, A., and J. Lamb (2012). Innovative workshop, 21 January 1998. Available at:
designs and approaches in sanitation when http://www.lboro.ac.uk/well/resources/
responding to challenging and complex Lessons%20Learned/Front%20page.htm
humanitarian contexts in urban areas DFID Research (2010). Providing better
Waterlines 31: 67-82 access to water in urban settlement, 25 Nov
Wolfe Murray, M. (2010). Islamabad workshop 2010. Available at: http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/
April 2012: preparatory note, summary note, project/5334/default.aspx
full report and PowerPoint presentation of Green, D. (2013) What do 6,000 people on
findings as presented by DFID to the Pakistan the receiving end of aid think of the system?
WASH Cluster Duncan Green blog article Jan 2013, available
Oxfam GB (2012). Public Health training: PHPs at: www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=13492
and PHEs workshop, May 2012
ACF International (2012): Policy: Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene 2011, Sector WASH:
ACF France: Strategic Frame 2011
Teafund (2012) Water Advocacy, Sanitation
and Hygiene: Lessons learnt from Tearfunds
global water, advocacy, sanitation and hygiene
programme 20072012

Humanitarian Innovation Fund Report 2013 20


Gap Analysis in Emergency Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion

Annex 6: Profile of Online


Practitioner Survey Respondents
The online survey permitted detailed
disaggregation of the data according to
the respondents experience. Of the 107
respondents many had experience of more
than one humanitarian programme, working
in different responses in camp settings (83),
floods (77), conflict (75), host communities
(64), earthquakes (54), rapid onset (51) and
drought (49). Other included Tsunami (4),
cholera (2), urban (1) and volcanic eruption
(1). The vast majority had more than 5 years
experience in the sector: 74 respondents had
worked for five years or more and 31 had
worked in the sector for between one and
five years. As a result their feedback reflects
considerable experience across multiple
contexts.

Humanitarian Innovation Fund Report 2013 21


Gap Analysis in Emergency Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion

Children were mentioned specifically about


Annex 7: Online Gap Analysis potties, biodegradable bags, nappies. Eco-
Survey for WASH Practitioners toilets separating urine was mentioned
The Gap Analysis survey was set up online as a possibility though had had limited
in February, with the French and Spanish success and eco-friendly solutions in general
versions becoming available at the beginning mentioned one suggestion was to view
of March and an Arabic version in April. The sewage as a high value resource rather
survey ran until 15th April 2013 (Arabic until than a waste (read: biogas, constructed
25th April). In May, given renewed interest, the wetlands, compost toilets), another that pit
survey was reopened until 5th June 2013. The latrine structure should be decomposable
response level was beyond expectation; 107 within a certain period of time. In the face
responses were received. of the extreme difficulties faced in Haiti one
suggestion was to establish a standard
As mentioned in the main report: vehicle kit for emptying latrines (including
Sanitation was mentioned 167 times in the pump, tank, pump clearing) and that this
survey and 55 times as a priority issue. should be developed in preparation for future
emergencies in similar contexts. Another
Hygiene promotion was raised 94 times in
specific request was for the design of kits for
total and 37 times as a priority issue.
emptying latrines in urban areas, manually or
Water was raised a total of 55 times overall semi-automatically.
and 26 as a priority issue.
For waste water treatment, (drainage
Other issues totalled 54 mentions and 24.
from shower units was also mentioned) a
The main report identifies the priority gaps and suggestion was low cost environmentally-
challenges; this annex contains more detail of friendly pond-based solutions and/or waste
single-comment issues: water pits to then be pumped, treated
elsewhere then used for agricultural or other
Sanitation purposes, stabilisation pools, transportable
- Excreta disposal anaerobic tanks and pumps for emptying,
One response raised the issue of the first 24 the suggested installation of water tight septic
hours when something like biodegradable tanks and secondary treatment for sanitation.
bags should be available before environmental More broadly, the continuum between
pollution starts. They considered the emergency development was mentioned
biodegradable bags innovative, decent and and echoed here with the comment surely
biodegradable and that organisations should we can think up some way to make these
stockpile them. Another raised biodegradable latrines continuous rather than batch. Also
bags as a possibility in impossible-to-dig mentioned was the need to train up more
contexts. locals, for the design of interventions to be
The issue is much more about excreta more easily maintained. The link with CLTS
waste management than waste water and was made for sanitation marketing and the
the key issues are in urban and floods and contradiction between CLTS and an ecological
rocky terrain. One respondent (working post sanitation approach noted. Other comments
Tsunami) described: Mounting the squatting included: the need to invest in the repair
slabs on HDPE tanks and emptying the tanks of conventional sewer and water systems
at regular intervals, however, it leads to a before disinfecting family wells, the challenge
further problem of desludging and disposing of working on large, modern urban water
of the excreta in a safe and hygienic manner and sanitation infrastructures, and the poor
when the dump site is also flooded. Other understanding of small scale piped network
comments were the need for better onsite design and management.
solutions to sanitation treatment and perhaps
to try dry sanitation.

Humanitarian Innovation Fund Report 2013 22


Gap Analysis in Emergency Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion

- Latrines - Urban
As to be expected, a lot of comments about Comments on urban issues confirmed the
the challenges of digging a latrine because increasingly well documented issues: lack of
not being allowed, rock, soil, snow, space space to dig latrines and dispose of excreta/
etc. There were several comments about sludge, inability to dig for various reasons and
maintenance, sustainability and cleaning and sanitation in general. Then there were other
the link with having latrines more at family issues: waste management, the challenge
or even household level (depending on the of large, modern urban water and sanitation
context). Maintenance was also linked to the infrastructures, construction of minimum DWS
cash4work schemes which then ceased and networks in urban areas, quick fill-up rates of
potential lack of willingness. This links with the latrines and a plea that cholera interventions in
emergency development discussion outlined urban environments could be better mapped
below in thinking more laterally. by GPS to determine clusters of cases and
thus target the areas most at risk. There was
Then there was the call for the development
a general suggestion that it is not clear and/or
of more models, some mentioned issues
standardised what technology or approaches
around using water for anal cleansing, others
are most appropriate for urban WASH and
about being more eco-friendly, one about
a specific request for the design of kits for
the material used for the slab. There was
emptying latrines in urban areas, manually or
mention of access for disabled. One asked
semi-automatically could end up repeating
for consolidation of various latrine designs
what is under sanitation and/or latrines.
for semi-permanent elevated latrines as were
begun in Haiti. There was also the suggestion Hygiene Promotion
of flat packed raised toilets; mobile kit
Some commented that HP wasnt as
latrines; portable latrines; even floating
prominent as it should be [it is] of paramount
latrines.
importance that management ensure that
Lighting was another issues raised especially hygiene is a component just like water and
linked with gender based violence (GBV). And sanitation, one said there was a need for
there was a call to improve the superstructure advocacy to greater integrate HP into all plans.
a) for environmental reasons and b) because In contrast, one commented that we should
of its importance for women in certain better evidence the actual impact, especially
contexts (Pakistan for example). of HP NFI kits. Many felt that community
participation and empowerment should be
Finally there was a reference to the need
the first priority especially to better involve
to accurately assess the need for latrines
youth, the disabled and men. The importance
before embarking on programmes doomed
of engaging with women and girls was
to failure (alternatively setting up a defecation
raised as well as elders. There were several
field away from the site and water points);
comments about an enabling environment,
reference to the need to further develop non-
national and sub national capacity building,
toilet options such as biodegradable bags
strengthening of community institutions
or boxes, including if they would be mobile;
to encourage ownership, supporting local
and one reference to CLTS which resulted in
NGO in a harmonised approach, using
the subsidised latrines being neglected and
schools more effectively, putting a safety
consequently unusable.
plan in place, promoting health clubs. One
example given was the healthy village and
healthy school programme in DRC referring
to rural communities. One of the challenges
raised was the low commitment of some
stakeholders, including low national capacity
and/or local participation.

Humanitarian Innovation Fund Report 2013 23


Gap Analysis in Emergency Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion

Sustainability and maintenance was raised And several comments related to the
which is linked to the above suggestions environmental aspect, with concerns about
about better involvement of and ownership by more need to consider it, integrate it, use
the beneficiaries and providing training. This low-tech options, pollution of groundwater
included HHWT which should be affordable and a comment was about the need for water
and applicable to the local cultural context. conservation and others about alternative
Behaviour change was raised and the ethical power (e.g. solar pumps) being more
concerns as well as the fact that it takes time appropriate.
including finding appropriate resources which
Then there were many specifically concerned
should be stockpiled. Also, how to maintain
about maintenance and sustainability long
behaviour change long term and measure it.
term, maintenance of both facilities and
- Children and vulnerable groups sustainability of behavioural practice, how to
ensure things dont always go back to how it
Comments ranged from how to improve
was before the emergency, for example.
the participation of vulnerable groups,
to specifically talking about children and Finally, a few respondents related the need for
youth and how to reach them and involve more attention on preparation and resilience
them, through WASH in schools and other against emergencies.
spontaneous sites, CHAST, within a CLTS
Spare parts networks needed - Community
approach. And the specifics of babies and
have to be trained on how to operate and
infants excreta disposal, consulting mothers,
maintain the facilities, to do this they need to
compostable nappies and/or liners. Then
be involved in the project at the onset. Need
there were comments about womens needs
for availability and accessibility of spare parts,
for proper screening around latrine and/
hence the need to put in place a spare parts
or shower units, so they can wash properly
network, perhaps through close collaboration
during menstruation and to consider providing
with NGO, Governments and business at
a separate bowl for washing menstrual items,
different levels.
a rope for hanging line etc. There were also a
couple of comments about access to latrines
for young (small) people and the disabled.

Water
Then there were the usual concerns about
household water treatment, water quality
including a suggestion about trying low-
carbon desalination and tackling salinity in
general and there were comments about
manual drilling, wells, trucking/tankering
issues and the need for better training of NGO
personnel.

Other issues
There were numerous comments about
the need to better integrate emergency
development, need for better understanding,
thinking long term from the start, use of local
knowledge that is already there.
Several respondents raised the importance
of exit strategies as important to stability
and ownership by the local community (or
government) suggesting that this should be
through greater participation at the start,
avoidance of dependency, what to do when
payments stop (for promoters, cleaners, waste
disposal etc)

Humanitarian Innovation Fund Report 2013 24


Gap Analysis in Emergency Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion

(local and/or central) and, where appropriate,


Annex 8: Summary of 'Other' maintaining an information flow to local
Issues raised authorities, encouraging them to take on their
As to be expected, there were many issues responsibilities and potentially involving them
raised that were beyond the scope of this in the monitoring and maintenance of WASH.
project as they do not lend themselves to Greater involvement and coordination with
innovative solutions, but are nonetheless of existing local NGOs and NGO development
interest and relevance to the Global WASH programmes was raised to promote the use
Cluster. Below is an overview. of local knowledge and develop emergency
The most significant other areas of preparedness (this was raised again under
concern are sustainability, the emergency- training and human resources issues below).
development continuum and exit strategies. Integration with other clusters was
mentioned, particularly health and nutrition.
In the Literature it was noted: Remote and semi-remote management was
emergencies happen within a context raised as well as quality issues and a potential
of longer-term development and we need for external monitoring (perhaps by the
should think about exit strategies and state or by the WASH Cluster).
sustainability issues from the start e.g. Some other relevant comments from other
solid waste, latrines, social marketing but contributors:
also long term maintenance of facilities by
the communities How to integrate WASH with other
sectors. The tools and approaches
environmental concerns, wasted water
necessary to make integrated approaches
at pump, poor drainage, maintaining and
work are poorly defined, despite our best
encouraging tree cover
efforts to date
Other comments on this: WASH in health facilities
- In other issues from the Country Coordination among WASH and Health
workshops: several of the country actors for epidemiological data sharing
discussions mentioned the need for exit and mapping of cases (South Sudan,
strategies and sustainability as well as Dadaab, 2012-13)
preparedness. Some mentioned the need Different tools to facilitate the
for better stockpiling of supplies having comprehension/interaction between Nut/
suffered from a lack of water storage Health and WASH actors could be thought
equipment of: by crossing the nutrition data with
- GWC noted transition from emergency water and sanitation mapping data
to development - policy and practice and Coordination-related issues such as
sustainability issues as number 3 in its information management and collection
2012 priorities were raised and storing and sharing data
efficiently. GIS mapping, graphics specialists
Coordination
to create HP materials and crowd sourcing to
The largest area in the Survey related support online innovative solutions were also
to coordination was around involving raised.
country governments (central and local)
and the generally agreed importance of Other comments:
coordination. State actors often fail to Mapping and information management -
provide any assistance/information; local Create ad-hoc and harmonised tools for
government actors may be overly dependent mapping (including training)
on NGOs, lack funds, technical knowledge,
needs for O&M of the systems
monitoring systems, strategy or policy.
There are some positive examples, such as cholera cases real time GPS mapping
a forthcoming national hygiene promotion simple GIS tools and excel sheets
strategy in Liberia but generally, when the
Funding issues were raised, particularly with
state plays a strong role, it only requires
reference to time lines, delays and limited
non-state actors to do one part of the work
time frames for longer-term outcomes such as
(HP for example). Suggestions included
behavioural change.
the importance of linking with state actors

Humanitarian Innovation Fund Report 2013 25


Gap Analysis in Emergency Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion

Other comment - Funding periods not Defining KAP studies how to overcome
realistically extending to or structured to issues of lack of time during early phases of a
realising behavioural change. Also, it seems response and possibly combine questions in
that ECHO and OFDA are tightening even KAP surveys with those in rapid assessments
further on emergency WASH response, so that meaningful KAP baseline data can be
and so the possibility of incorporating more gathered right at the start. Defining statistical
sustainable approaches which link to longer- analysis appropriate for KAP studies.
term sustainability (ie the LRRD approach) is
Data Collection and Management Test new
eluded.
platforms/technologies for quickly collecting
Training and Human Resources - There and analysing Household level survey data.
were several points made about the lack of Methodology for quickly collecting information
trained Emergency WASH staff in-country; and analysing it. A more standardised survey
some called for better opportunities for process. This may or may not require or
cross training with development personnel include technology such as smartphones.
or between countries. Another contribution
A suggestion to support training of the
referred to poor quality drilling expertise and
community in operation and maintenance, to
the inadequacy of short borehole drilling
make spare parts accessible by establishing
courses.
a spare parts network through collaboration
Other comments: with NGOs, government and business.
To have minimum training and provide a Ideas on organisation of camps as people
minimum knowledge to people who work arrive to make the response more effective
in WASH Decongest the camps and have smaller
Capacity building of local partners/national groups with more space. Make groupings
training initiatives based on initial social tied (language, religion,
ethnicity, village of origin) and return to the
Several contributors would like to see more extended family. Maintenance can be done by
preparation and prepositioning of materials, these groups and help required for draining.
especially in cyclical disaster areas. Other The ethnological/sociological is important in
single comments included limited or absent early response, thus allowing to find more
participation of beneficiaries and their pragmatic solutions and stick to reality.
priorities in baseline assessments, corruption
and the need for audits. Capturing WASH innovation globally - This
is about not having to reinvent the wheel for
Research into impact of gender sensitive / each response and to widely disseminate
womens empowerment programming in viable solutions whether they are appropriate
emergency WASH programme (as a way of in a particular context, region or globally. The
addressing gaps in the sector / evidence). online shelter library is an example but the
idea is to have a forum which would generate
Evaluation, engaging with academia to help
sharing across the globe in a way which the
evidence base
cluster (or clusters in other sectors) cant be
Any innovation requires robust evaluation. As expected to.
a sector, the emergency WASH community
could work to develop an innovative way Other comment: Emergency and early
to engage academia to be more involved recovery require different innovations and
during emergencies to help us to evaluate approaches, both should offer good value and
our work and provide recommendations to where possible lasting solutions.
improve emergency response activities. It is a Transparency and respect for humanitarian
struggle to get academia involved to evaluate commitment.
work conducted in a real-time manner.
Especially if we are considering new technical Community dependency on donors, high level
innovations we should think aboutways of corruption in service delivery process.
to improve the way evaluations are done in Ensuring quality audit and monitoring of
emergency and to work more closely with activities to ensure funds are properly used
academia. New technical innovations
should not be scaled up until they are
evaluated.

Humanitarian Innovation Fund Report 2013 26


Gap Analysis in Emergency Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion

There are no lines in the evaluation sheets to


note the view of beneficiaries in prioritising
actions, delaying or non-immediate response.
When implementing WASH programmes
in disaster-affected and fragile states, it is
vital to consider broader and underlying
issues in order to avoid prolonging the
emergency, creating secondary disasters
and reinforcing harmful stereotypes. For
example, environmental degradation in Darfur
has been exacerbated by the conflict and
subsequent relief efforts. And, if this problem
is not tackled urgently, competition for scarce
resources could be a driver of further conflict.
Also: In complex emergencies, there are
different socio-economic dynamics within
communities which can slow down demand-
led approaches as no construction subsidies
are provided to communities. Many
communities do not have access to livelihoods
and therefore have low financial capacity.
The tenant farmers did not see the need to
invest in infrastructure due to their status as
squatters.
Middle-income countries and our need to
adjust - In some contexts, especially in SE
Asia, many countries are shifting from low to
middle income. Consequently Government
capacity to meet their primary role for disaster
management is increasing. This requires
a shift from the international community in
terms of its traditional approach in providing
support.

Humanitarian Innovation Fund Report 2013 27


Gap Analysis in Emergency Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion

UNHCR
Annex 9: Detailed Results from
1. Sanitation in first phase emergency
Donor Questionnaire 2. Sanitation in flooded and rocky soil
OFDA contexts as well as urban situation
1. Evaluation, engaging with academia to 3. Handwashing facilities and their
help evidence base monitoring in communal toilets
2. New ways to measure behaviour change 4. Household water treatment
activities such as handwashing
3. Data Collection and Management
ECHO (summary of most relevant
4. Sanitation option in difficult environments, contributions from various offices)
including handwashing
Durability is often forgotten in
5. Innovative means of communicating with constructions and appropriate local
beneficiaries technology (ie stabilised soil blocks;
6. Develop and evaluate new methodologies bamboo reinforced concrete; biogas
for conducting hygiene promotion latrines; use of moringa plant)
Emergency excreta disposal, especially
in floods and potential of biodegradable
UNICEF
bags
1. Failsafe way of monitoring water tankering
Sustainable excreta disposal and low-
2. A better structured link to academia for cost sewerage options and checking in
evidence wastewater treatment happens elsewhere
UNICEF is also currently looking into: in the country so removal from the living
environment may be more important that
- new collapsible jerrycans treatment
- chlorine generators Suggested check-list for incremental
- cholera toolkit sanitation upgrading and similar for
- support to menstrual hygiene wastewater treatment
- archiving of cholera outbreak data (no Low-cost latrines, innovative construction
reference exists globally) models needed especially in floods in Asia
- urban integration of humanitarian WASH More innovation in software activities, HP/
with urban stakeholders trainings (ie IC leaflet with information
about disaster preparedness and HP
- training and orientation
messages alongside basic maths formulas
- residual chlorine testers so kept by school children for reference)
Tools to facilitate interaction between
nutrition/health including monitoring (ie.
DFID real time mapping of cholera in urban
1. Household excreta containment (especially areas), could be GIS/excel sheets
in urban contexts) and off-site excreta Better water treatment (ie water solar
disposal distillation in South Vietnam)
2. Promotion of sustainable supply and use Suggested selection matrix/guidance
of soap regarding the chain of public health
3. Household water treatment especially for priorities (from separating excreta from
very turbid water the immediate living environment, down
4. Creating and costing a benchmark quality to environmental protection) alongside
household WASH kit common constraints/considerations (ie
5. Simple solar water heating host government standards/norms/existing
practices, knowledge, acceptance)
6. Capturing WASH innovation globally
May 2013

Humanitarian Innovation Fund Report 2013 28


Gap Analysis in Emergency Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion

Humanitarian Innovation Fund Report 2013 29


Gap Analysis in Emergency Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene Promotion

Humanitarian Innovation Fund Report 2013 30